Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 15), omit "occupation; and", substitute "occupation;".

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 16 to 17), omit subparagraph 140GB(2)(c)(iii).

(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 11), omit "(2)(c)(iii), (d)(iii)", substitute "(2)(d)(iii)".

Whether a migrant works in construction or computing, we want to welcome the best and brightest to our shores. The new specialist skills visa pathway is supposed to enable this by granting a fast-tracked visa for those earning more than $135,000. But the government, for some reason, has decided to exclude trade workers, machinery operators, drivers and labourers from this new visa pathway. There has been no clear rationale articulated for this decision, aside from an outdated distinction between so-called blue-collar workers and white-collar workers.

The decision to exclude construction workers comes at a time when we urgently need to build more houses and expand the construction workforce. So, while I support this bill, I do not believe that the carve-out for skilled trade workers is justified. More broadly, I do not want to see politics and political pressure involved in decisions about our migration system. I don't think it is appropriate that the politicians or government of the day get to choose who is excluded or who isn't excluded from these pathways. That's because I think the point of the specialist skills pathway visa, the point of having this threshold of $135,000 in income, is to say that when industry know what they need these people should be let in, not that the government of the day should once again be pulling the strings based on pressures they may be under. I believe that this carve-out needs to be removed or that an alternative solution needs to be brought forward quickly to bring in highly skilled trade workers to Australia.

My amendments would remove the carve-out by preventing the minister from specifying whether particular occupations are eligible or ineligible for this new visa pathway. I acknowledge that this amendment is not a panacea that will end Australia's shortage of skilled tradies overnight, but it would make a positive difference to the building sector. It is aligned with the government's Migration Strategy and it will help ensure our skilled migration program is fit for the future.

I want to acknowledge the constructive engagement I've had with the Minister for Home Affairs on this issue over several months and acknowledge our shared desire to address skills shortages in construction. I urge the government and the opposition to support this amendment, because I believe the Australian people do not want to see politics and political considerations in relation to getting the best and brightest into the country. I ask the assistant minister two questions. Firstly, if the government is not willing to support this amendment, can you please give me an explanation as to why? Secondly, will you at least commit to providing an alternative pathway for bringing more skilled tradies to Australia—for example, by ensuring that all relevant occupations are included on the priority list for the new core skills pathway?

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wentworth for her constructive consultations with the minister. Unfortunately, we can't support these amendments. The amendments that the member seeks to move would allow skilled trades to access the specialist skills pathway, and there's a distinction. As part of this visa there is a specialist skills pathway and a core skills pathway. Those who are working in the trades will be in the core skills pathway. The reason for that distinction is that the Parkinson review recommended the establishment of a high-income, highly skilled specialist pathway for skilled migration. In relation to that, the review stated specifically:

It is our expectation that this group be limited to professional occupations and not generally include the skilled trades.

The government has accepted that recommendation, and this bill reflects the government's adoption of that approach.

Skilled trades will still, however, be eligible for the core skills pathway if their occupation is included on the core skills occupation list. Jobs and Skills Australia have undertaken a thorough consultation regarding that core skills occupation list. They've consulted with businesses, unions, industry associations, the state and territory governments and other stakeholders. They've made a recommendation to the Minister for Home Affairs. The minister is finalising that process, and we'll publish that list soon.

But I would say that the government are committed to ensuring that we support employers who do have requirements for skilled labour in the trades area, particularly in the construction trades. It was reported in estimates this week that 11,349 skilled building workers migrated to Australia over financial year 2023-24. That's the highest number of skilled building workers in 10 years to have come to Australia and double the number that came to Australia under the final year of the coalition government. So we are responding to the needs of employers when it comes to ensuring that we're processing visas for skilled trades workers as quickly as possible to ensure that the construction sector can continue to grow in Australia.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to address some further questions to the minister. We know where we are in construction. I don't need Jobs and Skills to come back to me—or anyone, frankly, in this parliament—to know that we are absolutely in a hole in relation to construction skills in this country. It is absolutely evident when you talk to any builder. It is evident when you see that there is a cost blowout of $30 billion over the $120 billion in government infrastructure spending.

As a country, we are paying over the odds on our construction at the moment and we unable to build housing because of a lack of skills. So I still cannot understand why the government hasn't made a commitment, at least on the core skills pathway, to include all construction workers, because we know we need them—we need them now. Firstly, what is the rationale for not doing this? Secondly, what is the timeframe in which the minister is going to undertake the considering of this? The need is desperately evident. Honestly, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government certainly recognises that there are challenges in the construction industry associated with increasing costs. Much of that is to do with supply chain issues off the back of COVID. Some of it is to do with increasing labour costs.

But this government is committed to ensuring, firstly, as a foundation, that we are training more Australian tradespeople, and that is the philosophy behind the government announcing this week that fee-free TAFE will be permanent so that anyone who wants to do a trade in the construction area gets access to doing that trade and that we're training more Australians. That's the foundation. But where there is a requirement for additional labour, the government is putting in place a migration system that will allow employers to bring in skilled tradespeople for the construction sector as quickly as possible to supplement that labour. I reiterate that this government has brought in more skilled building workers in the last year than at any time over the last 10 years. So the government is responding to the needs of industry and to that increase in demand.

Secondly, of course, we're making sure that we've got the housing policies in place to build more houses and to increase housing supply. Those policies that are associated with increasing investments in social and affordable housing—such as the Housing Australia Future Fund, and Help to Buy, which is held up in the Senate—are all aimed at ensuring that we're increasing the housing supply and that more Australians get access to owning their own homes.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just come back to this question: what's the timeframe under which the government is going to come back in relation to the core skills pathway, and what is the commitment in relation to ensuring that construction workers are on that list? I appreciate what you're saying about TAFE and skills, but when you talk to businesses and people right now they will say that, if there's any chance of meeting any of the housing targets, what you need is construction workers now.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are construction workers being approved now. They are being approved. The timeline regarding the Jobs and Skills Australia draft and the Core Skills Occupation List is, as I said, with the minister at the moment. The minister is currently finalising that, and that will be released over the coming months.

Question unresolved.

Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188, the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report to the House on the bill.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 10), before "different kinds of occupations", insert "subject to subsection (5A),".

(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 11), after subsection 140GB(5), insert:

(5A) None of the following kinds of occupations may be prescribed for the purposes of subparagraph (2)(c)(iii):

(a) trade workers;

(b) machinery operators or drivers;

(c) labourers.

Can I say in the first instance that it's good to see that we are having this debate. This is something that the Leader of the Opposition put on the national agenda in his budget-in-reply speech in May, and it's very good to see that there is a realisation that we have to do something about the shortage of workers that we have in the construction space. What we would like to see is the government addressing the shortage of carpenters and joiners, electricians, plumbers, bricklayers and stonemasons, building inspectors, construction managers, painters and decorators, plasterers, roof tilers, and wall and floor tilers, because if we are to deal with the construction crisis we've got at the moment then we have to make sure that we can complement our domestic workforce.

One of the things—and we've been pointing this out for a very long time—that the government has made an absolute botch of is its migration program. Over one million people have come into this country in the last two years, and we do not have the houses to be able to support that level of population increase. One of the things which are absolutely clear is that those numbers are going to continue because, every time the government has a net overseas migration target, it misses it and it misses it by tens of thousands of people, and it's going to continue to do so. And, while they continue to miss their net overseas migration target, they're not building the houses that we need. This is causing the housing crisis and it's causing a rental crisis, and the government needs to address this.

We are all absolutely in favour of making sure that we have got more people locally doing the trades that we need, but we've also got to make sure that, during this housing crisis and this rental crisis, we are complementing our domestic industry with the skills that they need. Now, we know why this isn't being done at the moment, and that's because of the CFMEU. But we also know that the CFMEU has been put into administration. So the government can work now to make sure that we are complementing the workforce skills that we need in the construction space.

The Assistant Minister for Immigration has talked about a core skills pathway and said that these things should go on the core skills pathway. Well, I would ask the minister this question: at a minimum, why don't construction managers and building inspectors go onto this list? They should be on this list. Construction managers and building inspectors, at a minimum, should go onto this list. I would say to the minister: why are they being excluded?

Now, our view is, as I've made very clear in my amendment, that what we should be doing is putting in trade workers, machinery operators or drivers, and labourers because, given the crisis that we have at the moment, which is so great—and especially when it seems that this government is not going to be able to bring net overseas migration under control and that one million is going to head to 1.5 million rapidly—something needs to be done and it needs to be done urgently. That's why we need trade workers, we need machinery operators and drivers, and we need labourers to be able to complement our existing domestic construction workforce.

If we're going to go back and say, 'The review said this, and the review said that,' I would say to the assistant minister, 'Why aren't construction managers and building inspectors at a minimum on that list?' The whole process that the government has embarked upon—and I give the assistant minister a leave pass because he's part of the new ministers that have come in to try and clean up the mess of the previous ministers, but we need this mess cleaned up quickly. So, Assistant Minister, why won't you agree to our amendments, given what is happening, and why in particular won't construction managers and building inspectors be put on the list?

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister for his contribution. The government won't be supporting the amendments that he's moved. There's a simple reason why we have a housing shortage in Australia and it's that the previous government didn't invest in constructing new social and affordable housing in Australia.

There was no investment in additional housing supply under the previous government, and this government is having to clean up that mess through policies such as the Housing Australia Future Fund, Help to Buy and others, and it's working. This coming 12 months, 13,500 thousand new social and affordable houses will be constructed under this government's Housing Australia Future Fund allocation.

As to the core occupation list, I reiterate the point I made earlier that the core occupation list, as recommended by Jobs and Skills Australia, has been put together after a thorough process of consultation between businesses, in particular, unions, workers, state and territory governments, employer associations and industry associations. The list responds to the needs of industry. Again, that is what the government is doing. We have brought in close to 11,500 skilled building workers over the last 12 months, which is more than were brought in under the coalition in its final year. In fact, it's double the numbers under the coalition in its final year.

We're responding to the needs of industry, we're ensuring that we're bringing on that additional supply in the housing market, and this bill, with its specialist skills pathway for those who are working at trade level and above and its core skills pathway for trades occupations, ensures that we get the right labour that we need in Australia to meet those demands into the future.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to the assistant minister that over a million people have come into the country in two years and we've got a housing crisis and a rental crisis. The government is using this figure that 11,000 people have already been brought in to help deal with the skills needed for the construction industry, and especially the housing industry.

Does the minister think, as we're now heading to nearly 1.5 million people coming in over three years, that 11,000 is enough or does the minister think that we need to make sure that we've got additional skilled people to help with this housing crisis and rental crisis, and that we therefore have to find additional pathways to be able to bring in the construction skills that we need? That is why we need to do something urgently to address this issue. Otherwise, the minister is saying that, with 1.5 million people coming to this country—which is a record number we've never seen the likes of—11,000 additional skills in this area is enough. Is that what he's saying or do we need more?

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the shadow minister is aware, there is a certain allocation of a number of visas in different categories that are outlined by the government each year. The overwhelming majority is allocated to skilled migration, to ensure that employers have the skills that they need to meet the demands of industry in Australia.

I mentioned earlier that our focus in terms of providing that labour is to train more Australians. The priority for this government is to train more Australians in traineeships and apprenticeships, particularly in the construction trades, which is why we're making fee-free TAFE permanent. But where there's a need and demand for additional for additional labour, there are opportunities for employers and the states and territories to sponsor skilled workers.

The numbers that are allocated in that program are based on demand. It's up to an employer to make an application to the department or a state or territory government to sponsor a skilled worker. The federal government responds to that application, assuming that the person meets all of the relevant criteria, by granting a visa. So the list is compiled based on the demands of industry and meeting the demands of industry, and that will continue into the future.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I asked the assistant minister whether he thinks that the government's very ambitious—some would say highly fanciful—housing target can be met given the existing construction workforce in this country at the moment. Is it possible for the government to achieve its target for housing in this country over the next five years? The shortfall is seen by most people as between 400,000 to 500,000, so is the existing workforce going to be able to meet the government's target? Everyone in the industry says that it won't be able to. So how are you going to complement the domestic workforce to cover that 400,000 to 500,000 likely shortfall in your housing target?

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first thing that we're doing is building more homes, which is what Australians want and need. Under the previous government, investment in social and affordable housing stalled, while a number of state Liberal governments were actually selling off public and affordable housing. This government is committed to, firstly, ensuring that we're increasing the housing supply by building more social and affordable housing through policies such as the Housing Australia Future Fund, through our Social Housing Accelerator, through the co-investments with the state and territory governments. We've also got schemes that ensure that we're assisting renters with the cost of increasing rents.

At the same time, we're investing in the skills development of Australians to meet that future demand through policies such as fee-free TAFE. We're also ensuring that, where there is a requirement for employers for additional labour, they get access to that skilled labour, particularly in the building trades, as quickly as possible. And it's reflected in the figures; it's reflected in the fact that we've had a doubling of the number of skilled trade workers for approved skilled visas over the last 12 months, compared to the final year of the coalition. It's the highest that it's been in the last 10 years. So the claim that the government is not responding to the demands of industry is a fallacy. We've doubled the numbers, and we're putting in place a new system that will ensure it's more responsive to the needs of employers, particularly in the construction trades.

Question unresolved.

Alicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.